From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 9 19:58:02 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2038B16A41F for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 19:58:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from deltaski@earthlink.net) Received: from vms042pub.verizon.net (vms042pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0DC43D46 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2005 19:58:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from deltaski@earthlink.net) Received: from [192.168.1.47] ([71.114.180.162]) by vms042.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2 HotFix 0.04 (built Dec 24 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0IMK00ASDFGL00D1@vms042.mailsrvcs.net> for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:57:58 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 14:59:25 -0500 From: deltaski@earthlink.net In-reply-to: <4321DF1D.1040803@scls.lib.wi.us> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-id: <200509091459.25743.deltaski@earthlink.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline References: <200509090939.47357.deltaski@earthlink.net> <200509091120.36432.deltaski@earthlink.net> <4321DF1D.1040803@scls.lib.wi.us> User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 Cc: Greg Barniskis Subject: Re: Home Network Setup Problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 19:58:02 -0000 On Friday 09 September 2005 02:14 pm, Greg Barniskis wrote: > deltaski@earthlink.net wrote: > >>Is it a switch, is it a router, or is it really both (high end > >>thingy like Cisco 35xx?). Probably it is just a plain old switch > >>with no routing capabilities. To avoid confusion, you should call it > >>what it is. > > > > Oh my, sorry. It is an 8-port 10/100Mbps Ethernet Switch! How does that > > change anything? > > It really doesn't (you don't want a router in that location, you > want a switch). A router connects multiple IP subnets that otherwise > cannot talk to one another. Turning on the gateway feature on your > FreeBSD box makes it a two-interface router. A switch merely > multiplexes packets on many ports (it's a signal repeater/amplifier). > > [snip] > > > Oh, my sorry! Yes, the default gateway is set and I have no firewall to > > complicate matters. > > Ah... I see the problem now. You *MUST* do NAT on your BSD gateway, > unless you personally control the configuration of your DSL router > and can give it the necessary routing instructions to find your 172 > network. > > You are trying to ping your DSL router from a private network > address that the router does not know about. The ping will reach the > DSL router and it will not know where to send the reply because your > private address does not (cannot) exist in its routing table. So, it > sends the reply on its default route, which is towards the Internet. > Bye, bye ping reply! > > Again, this is just very basic networking stuff. I didn't see it > before because I route packets between private networks all the time > and it works -- the difference is that all my routers are > well-informed about the pathways to all nearby networks. > > For the background information you need to know, buy this or find it > at your local library: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/tcp3/ > > I'm sure there are other and even better titles. Greg, thank you for the link. But, I do have one problem with your analysis. If the DSL router (192.168.1.1) received a ping from 192.168.1.100 would it not respond to 192.168.1.100 as that is a known address? If 192.168.1.100 can connect to the internet thru 192.168.1.1 it is indeed reachable from the DSL router 192.168.1.1! As such, the problem would be no packets getting to 192.168.1.100 from the other available network (172.16.1.xxx). Remember, NIC 192.168.1.100 can ping and connect to the internet. 172.16.1.35 can ping 192.168.1.100 BUT, 172.16.1.35 CANNOT ping 192.168.1.1 thru 192.168.1.100! Donald